Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force Cult of War
119
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 10:49:00 -
[1] - Quote
I've been around long enough to remember what it was like before we had Sovereignty Mechanics. For life in null sec, it was a god send. You would own a station and unless your alliance had a significant activity around the clock (which most didn't in those days) you ran the risk of waking up to find your shiny new station under the ownership of someone else. You'd need to stay docked, organise a fleet then go out and take it back, only to wake up in the morning and find you had to repeat the process all over again. Station ping pong. Trust me when I say it was worse than sov mechanics are now.
But things changed. We got Sov mechanics. First POS, then iHubs, TCUs and Station timers. Now the latter is the important bit here. Station Timers. Plural. Two timers on a station before the station is under the attackers ownership. Which begs the question: Why do we need iHubs and TCUs?
Station Ping Pong - the very reason why Sovereignty was introduced in the first place - cannot occur so why the need for all the extra infrastructure we have to grind through (or as is the case in the game today, choose not to grind through which has lead to null sec stagnation). Sure the TCU gives you your alliance name in the top left and the iHub allows for upgrades but they could easily be incorporated in to the station itself. Get rid of iHubs and TCUs and attackers have less grind to engage in whilst a dual station timer system allows defenders ample opportunity to defend their territory.
All of a sudden rather than having four timers per system to contend with, there's only two per system and both within a 48 hour period. It suddenly feels less of a grind. Territory can exchange hands faster whilst still providing ample opportunity for sovereignty holders to mount an effective defence. With less grind, more alliances are inclined to go to war against each other. With a reduced to 48 hour window, a small, organised alliance can take space from a large, disorganised alliance. Pilots in null sec suddenly have a reason to long on again or people who left null sec because of the grind have a reason to come back.
CCP agrees Sov Mechanics aren't fit for purpose yet can't decide on an alternative to them. It seems to me, the answer has been staring them in the face all the long. |
Fer'isam K'ahn
None Of One
405
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 12:49:00 -
[2] - Quote
Remove Sov Join the BIG Lottery (see Bio ingame), oldest and only non-profit Lottery in EVE, every second Monday. Wire ISK to BIG GAMES for tickets ! Join the Channel, have fun, being a lucky winner is optional ,)
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13165
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 13:29:00 -
[3] - Quote
John McCreedy wrote: CCP agrees Sov Mechanics aren't fit for purpose yet can't decide on an alternative to them.
CCP are infact working very hard on this but this will take some time and many changes are ahead of us. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
483
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 14:21:00 -
[4] - Quote
Problem is the i hubs are per system. This idea would have it so you'd need a station per system for upgrades.
Startup costs for this are kind of high for some one issue.
Second issue is player outposts can't be destroyed. System X has an amarr station, its amarr forever more. Even if the new residents at some point don't like it. Can create issues if prior owners were idiots. I was in a home that put up amarr in the centre of a heavy ratting mining area we used. Then got paranoid when players like me spent lots of time in another corp's space with a minmatar station. What gives? they asked once or twice, like them better? Nah....I wanted a minmatar station for refines, you put up amarr. Sooo....I get my better refines/loot melt downs (did this when loot was much better for this) however I can.
Also seeing this favor the "blob". Got 2 choices here. Defenders flood the system to get most in before tide kicks in hard for turkey shoots (harder to get in an be effective in a dying node than to be there and settled). Or they can flood a system for the attack. The thing that "hurts" the blob is yes the many timers grind sucks but it sadly adds a needed element, attrition due to boredom.
I can see goons and some others roll stomping since they can find the bodies for cta calls with a clear goal, dead system in 2 days. Goons like many has issues keeping that constant pressure up over a week or more though (for several system takes). I know on long grind ops my alliance at the time had my sword 2, maybe 3 nights. Other nights I just had better things to do than press f1 and called out sick as it were. In my case being oceanic this more a matter of time. up till 0100 bashing pos' forever had work suck eventually lol.
Annoying for the attacker? Yes. But also have been on the other end. the nights the other side had a noticeable amount of people call out sick...it gave you a little break, maybe some hope as leadership tried a few things to make things happen. Vice well we are just waiting for the impending zerg rush of doom over 2 days. |
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force Cult of War
119
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 15:02:00 -
[5] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:John McCreedy wrote: CCP agrees Sov Mechanics aren't fit for purpose yet can't decide on an alternative to them.
CCP are infact working very hard on this but this will take some time and many changes are ahead of us.
They've been saying that for half a decade or more and we still don't have an alternative. The problem is that somewhere along the line, CCP lost sight of why Sov Mechanics where introduced in the first place and made an unnecessary complex system to fix a rather simplistic problem, hence is why I'm asking the question, what need of iHubs and TCUs?
Sov is needed otherwise you end up with Station Ping Pong which, trust me, is worse because you end up with people griefing your station with no intentions of ever holding it and all you end up doing is spending your evenings re-taking it; it would sound the death knell for non-NPC null sec.
|
Jur Tissant
Unreal Darkness
230
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 17:07:00 -
[6] - Quote
Pretty please. Sovereignty should be determined by a group's ability to monitor and hold their own space. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13171
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 18:11:00 -
[7] - Quote
John McCreedy wrote:baltec1 wrote:John McCreedy wrote: CCP agrees Sov Mechanics aren't fit for purpose yet can't decide on an alternative to them.
CCP are infact working very hard on this but this will take some time and many changes are ahead of us. They've been saying that for half a decade or more and we still don't have an alternative. The problem is that somewhere along the line, CCP lost sight of why Sov Mechanics where introduced in the first place and made an unnecessary complex system to fix a rather simplistic problem, hence is why I'm asking the question, what need of iHubs and TCUs? Sov is needed otherwise you end up with Station Ping Pong which, trust me, is worse because you end up with people griefing your station with no intentions of ever holding it and all you end up doing is spending your evenings re-taking it; it would sound the death knell for non-NPC null sec.
They are currently looking at a number of plans including ours. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1329
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 21:17:00 -
[8] - Quote
John McCreedy wrote:baltec1 wrote:John McCreedy wrote: CCP agrees Sov Mechanics aren't fit for purpose yet can't decide on an alternative to them.
CCP are infact working very hard on this but this will take some time and many changes are ahead of us. They've been saying that for half a decade or more and we still don't have an alternative. The problem is that somewhere along the line, CCP lost sight of why Sov Mechanics where introduced in the first place and made an unnecessary complex system to fix a rather simplistic problem, hence is why I'm asking the question, what need of iHubs and TCUs? Sov is needed otherwise you end up with Station Ping Pong which, trust me, is worse because you end up with people griefing your station with no intentions of ever holding it and all you end up doing is spending your evenings re-taking it; it would sound the death knell for non-NPC null sec. You have to look at SOV from a bottom up perspective. All the problems below will still cause problems later on, regardless of a change. That's why CCPs roadmap started with industry and is planned to go through corps/alliances, POSes and then SOV.
Better to rip out the rotting wooden walls and replace them before you decide to add another floor to your house. |
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force Cult of War
120
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 10:59:00 -
[9] - Quote
There seems to be some misunderstanding in this thread. I was not attempting to come up with a plan for a new Sov system, I am asking a question. We already have a perfectly functional sov system. It works exactly as intended and it works perfectly fine. It is not, in any way, shape or form, "broken". It is, however, long winded. Outposts/Conquerable Stations have a dual timer system, therefore, what need have we of further infrastructure and timers? That is the question I'm asking of CCP. Simply streamline the process of contesting Sov by removing TCUs and iHubs. Sometimes things get over thought and become over complicated as a result. Often the simplest solution is the best. |
Ellendras Silver
Ordo Drakonis Nulli Secunda
150
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 12:45:00 -
[10] - Quote
John McCreedy wrote:There seems to be some misunderstanding in this thread. I was not attempting to come up with a plan for a new Sov system, I am asking a question. We already have a perfectly functional sov system. It works exactly as intended and it works perfectly fine. It is not, in any way, shape or form, "broken". It is, however, long winded. Outposts/Conquerable Stations have a dual timer system, therefore, what need have we of further infrastructure and timers? That is the question I'm asking of CCP. Simply streamline the process of contesting Sov by removing TCUs and iHubs. Sometimes things get over thought and become over complicated as a result. Often the simplest solution is the best.
ok lets say we get rid of i-hubs and TCU`s what about the systems without an station? Carpe noctem |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |